Minnesota DWI Lawyer F. T. Sessoms Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Cruz (decided December 30, 2019, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that disclosure of a urine sample test result to the district court, obtained pursuant to a jail booking procedure, does not violate the Minnesota Data Privacy Act.  (Why it does not violate the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution is beyond me but it does not appear the defense raised a constitutional objection).

In Cruz, the Defendant was arrested for driving after his license had been cancelled.  Mr. Cruz was taken to the Nobles County Jail where, as a part of the booking procedure, he was asked to submit to a urine test.  The test result revealed the presence of methamphetamine.  The jail informed the arresting deputy of the test result and the deputy then applied for a search warrant to obtain a sample of the Defendant's blood.

The district court issued the search warrant, and the blood sample confirmed the presence of methamphetamine in Defendant's system. The Defendant was subsequently charged with one count of gross misdemeanor driving after cancelation—IPS, and one count of misdemeanor driving while under the influence of a controlled substance.

The Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress the blood test result arguing arguing that the search warrant was invalid because it “was based solely on private medical data which was improperly disclosed by jail staff to an investigating police officer during the course of a criminal investigation.” The district court determined that data stemming from a “urine sample collected as part of the booking process is ‘corrections and detention data’” under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA). The district court also determined that although this corrections and detention data is classified as private under the MGDPA, see Minn. Stat. § 13.85, subd. 2, it “may be released to law enforcement if necessary for law enforcement purposes” under Minn. Stat. § 13.85, subd. 5. The district court, therefore, denied appellant’s motion to suppress because the results of the urine test were “appropriately reported to law enforcement.”

On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court noting:

"The MGDPA “regulates the collection, creation, storage, maintenance, dissemination, and access to government data in government entities.” Minn. Stat. § 13.01, subds. 1, 3. A government entity is “a state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision.” Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subd. 7a. The MGDPA differentiates between “data on individuals” and “data not on individuals.” See Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subds. 4, 5. “After the initial classification as either data on individuals or not on individuals, the data is categorized as either public, private, or confidential.” Int 7 Bhd. Of Elec Workers, Local No. 292 v. City of St. Cloud, 765 N.W.2d 64, 66 (Minn. 2009). Public data on individuals is accessible to the public. Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subd. 15. Private data on individuals is data which is made not public by statute or federal law, but is accessible to the subject of the data. Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subd. 12. Confidential data on individuals is data made not public by statute or federal law, and is not accessible to the individual subject of that data. Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subd. 3. While private data and confidential data generally may not be disclosed to the public, private data may be disclosed as specficially authorized by law. Minn. Stat. § 13.05, subd. 4(b)."

"Under Minn. Stat. § 13.85, subd. 2, certain “corrections and detention data on individuals are classified as private.” “Corrections and detention data” is data on individuals that is “created, collected, used or maintained because of their lawful confinement or detainment in state reformatories, prisons and correctional facilities, municipal or county jails, lockups, workhouses, work farms and all other correctional and detention facilities.” Minn. Stat. § 13.85, subd. 1. Corrections and detention data may be released “to any law enforcement agency, if necessary for law enforcement purposes, or to the victim of a criminal act where the data are necessary for the victim to assert the victim’s legal right to restitution.” Minn. Stat. § 13.85, subd. 5. And Minn. Stat. § 13.85, subd. 4 provides that “[a]fter any presentation to a court, any data made private or confidential by this section shall be public to the extent reflected in court records.”

"Here, the parties agree that the test results from the urine sample collected at the county jail are private “corrections and detention data” within the meaning of the MGDPA. Appellant appears to concede that the jail was authorized to release the results of the urine test to the deputy for “law enforcement purposes” under section 13.85, subdivision 5. But appellant argues that because the district court “is part of the judiciary,” which is separate and distinct from law enforcement, the deputy lacked authority under the MGDPA to release appellant’s urine-test results to the court in the warrant application. ***

"Construing section 13.85 as a whole, and its words and sentences in light of their context, we conclude that the disclosure of appellant’s urine-test results to the district court in the search-warrant affidavit did not violate the MGDPA. Although appellant’s urine-test results are private corrections and detention data under Minn. Stat. § 13.85, subd. 2, these results may be released “to any law enforcement agency, if necessary for law enforcement purposes.” Minn. Stat. § 13.85, subd. 5. A search warrant serves a law enforcement purpose."

"Additionally, subdivision 4 of the statute provides that “[a]fter any presentation to a court, any data made private ... by this section shall be public to the extent reflected in court records.” Id., subd. 4. The fact that Minn. Stat. § 13.85, subd. 4 contemplates that private data under section 13.85 may be presented to a court indicates that private corrections and detention data may be disclosed by law enforcement to the district court “for law enforcement purposes” without violating the MGDPA. And the provision in subdivision 4 that the private corrections and detention data becomes public only “to the extent reflected in court records” demonstrates that the filing of private data with the courts is not the same as disclosing private data to the public and is permitted by the MGDPA."

***

"As the state points out, if the MGDPA precludes law enforcement from filing private corrections and detention data with the courts in a search-warrant application, then law enforcement would also be precluded from disclosing criminal investigative data to the courts. See Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 7 (“[I]nvestigative data collected or created by a law enforcement agency in order to prepare a case against a person, whether known or unknown, for the commission of a crime ... for which the agency is the primary investigative responsibility are confidential or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active.”). If that were the case, then law enforcement would be severely hampered in obtaining search warrants and investigating crimes."

The district court's judgement was, therefore, affirmed. But I  do not understand why the defense did not raise a constitutional challenge to the search.  It is well established that a jail can conduct intrusive searches to prevent contraband from being introduced into their facility.  But what is the justification for taking a person's urine without probable cause? I don't get it.

Moral Of The Story:  Urine is now data.

If you or a loved one have been arrested for a Minnesota DWI, or are facing a DWI forfeiture of your motor vehicle, feel free to contact Minnesota DWI Lawyer, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI questions.